A Latent Variable Framework for Power Estimation Within Intervention Contexts

This paper presents a latent growth SEM approach for the estimation of treatment effects, and power to detect such effects, within a true experimental design setting in which subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions. Power estimation is a critical component of intervention experiment design and the testing of their results. Although researchers have become increasingly sophisticated in applying tests for statistical significance in intervention contexts, few are aware of the power of these tests. The issues raised in this paper are not new; however, reminding researchers to consider these points is important. Exactly how the researcher handles these issues will depend on the questions asked and the resources available, as well as other considerations. Discussion underscores the relationship between the reliability of a study's measures and concomitant increases in power obtained within the SEM framework.     

2002年:中国医疗纠纷处理的重大转折

2002年4月1日开始实施的《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,要求医院对医疗行为与损害的因果关系和不存在医疗过错承担举证责任,一时间,医院对此忿忿不平,百姓对此拍手叫好,4月15日,期待已久的《国务院医疗事故处理条例》缍正式颁布,与1987年颁布的《医疗事故处理办法》相比有了重大改变,中国医疗纠纷的处理在2002年发生了重大转折,对此进行了详细分析,与大多数人的观点不同,认为前者恰恰对医院有利,而后者对医院更为严格。     

错误管理理论:一种新的认知偏差理论

基于统计学上的两类基本错误而提出的错误管理理论,为一种新的认知偏差--适应性偏差提供了理论上的解释.作者在阐述这一理论的同时,指出了错误管理理论在社会心理学领域,尤其在侵犯等一些应用性的社会心理领域,具有不可估量的理论意义和实践价值.     

自然语言处理预测抑郁症的技术陷阱与道德风险

抑郁症患者倾向于在网络社交平台上发布带有抑郁信号的推文。基于这些文字信息，借助自然语言处理进行分析，提取归纳用户的语言特征，可以预测潜在用户的抑郁症状况。由于隐私信息的敏感、相关技术的不成熟等原因，出现了诸如信息获取与隐私侵犯、算法偏见与信息误判、信息权利与信息利益、责任界定与权限模糊等现实问题，成为进一步发展的掣肘。进行算法技术升级、完善法律法规、加强行业伦理约束等是避免道德风险的重要措施。     

EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE SELF-CORRECTION,DELAYED SELF-CORRECTION,AND NO CORRECTION ON THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF MULTIPLICATION FACTS BY A FOURTH-GRADE STUDENT WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

This study compared the effects of immediate self-correction, delayed self-correction, and no correction on the acquisition and maintenance of multiplication facts by a fourth-grade student with learning disabilities. Data from daily and maintenance tests indicated that both correct response rate and accuracy were higher when self-correction was immediate rather than delayed or absent.     

When to Self-Correct?: A Comparison of Two Procedures on Spelling Performance

We compared the effects of two self-correction procedures on the spelling performance of 5 elementary school students with learning disabilities. Previous studies consistently have demonstrated self-correction to be more effective than traditional approaches to spelling instruction. However, we could find no single-subject design experiments analyzing the procedural details of how or when self-correction should be conducted to be most effective. For 4 days each week students practiced a list of 20 spelling words by listening to an audiotape on which the weekly list was dictated and writing the words. For half of each week's words, students checked and self-corrected after attempting each word; for the other half of the list, the students self-corrected after attempting all 10 words. An alternating treatments design showed self-correction after each word to be more effective for acquisition of new spelling words as measured by end-of-the-week tests for all 5 students, and maintenance of previously studied spelling words as measured by 1-week maintenance tests for 4 of the 5 students.     

Conditions for factor (in)determinacy in factor analysis

The subject of factor indeterminacy has a vast history in factor analysis (Guttman, 1955; Lederman, 1938; Wilson, 1928). It has lead to strong differences in opinion (Steiger, 1979). The current paper gives necessary and sufficient conditions for observability of factors in terms of the parameter matrices and a finite number of variables. Five conditions are given which rigorously define indeterminacy. It is shown that (un)observable factors are (in)determinate. Specifically, the indeterminacy proof by Guttman is extended to Heywood cases. The results are illustrated by two examples and implications for indeterminacy are discussed.     

Examination of efficacious,efficient, and socially valid error‐correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder

Prior research shows that learners have idiosyncratic responses to error‐correction procedures during instruction. Thus, assessments that identify error‐correction strategies to include in instruction can aid practitioners in selecting individualized, efficacious, and efficient interventions. The current investigation conducted an assessment to compare 5 error‐correction procedures that have been evaluated in the extant literature and are common in instructional practice for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the assessment identified efficacious and efficient error‐correction procedures for all participants, and 1 procedure was efficient for 4 of the 5 participants. To examine the social validity of error‐correction procedures, participants selected among efficacious and efficient interventions in a concurrent‐chains assessment. We discuss the results in relation to prior research on error‐correction procedures and current instructional practices for learners with ASD.     

Why we can still believe the error theory

The error theory is a metaethical theory that maintains that normative judgments are beliefs that ascribe normative properties, and that these properties do not exist. In a recent paper, Bart Streumer argues that it is impossible to fully believe the error theory. Surprisingly, he claims that this is not a problem for the error theorist: even if we can’t fully believe the error theory, the good news is that we can still come close to believing the error theory. In this paper I show that Streumer’s arguments fail. First, I lay out Streumer’s argument for why we can’t believe the error theory. Then, I argue against the unbelievability of the error theory. Finally, I show that Streumer’s positive proposal that we can come close to believing the error theory is actually undermined by his own argument for why we can’t believe the error theory.     

Empowering and legitimizing the fundamental attribution error: Power and legitimization exacerbate the translation of role‐constrained behaviors into ability differences

Our daily interactions are influenced by the social roles we endorse. People however underestimate these role constraints in their everyday explanation relying on individual dispositions to make sense of behaviors. Two studies investigated whether this bias is exacerbated when role structure is legitimated and when power matches the advantages conferred by the social roles of a quiz game. Legitimacy as well as power increased the tendency for both advantaged (questioner) and disadvantaged (answerer) actors (Study 1) as well as naïve observers of the quiz game (Study 2) to attribute to ability the behaviors elicited by social roles. These results extend previous findings. People are more prone to explain constrained behaviors by differences in ability when role structure is legitimated and when power asymmetry matches role structure. Legitimacy and power may then play an important role in the translation of role constraints into inferences about ability.